Here's a touching story from ABC News, today:

Stacy Rojas, a 34-year-old teacher at Molina High School in Dallas, was happily expecting her first child with her husband, Marcus.

Six months into her pregnancy, though, Stacy had a brain aneurysm and went into a coma.

Marcus and Stacy's doctors made a difficult decision: to keep her body alive to incubate the child she yearned for....

She was pronounced brain dead the next day....

For doctors, keeping Stacy and her unborn baby alive was a medical high-wire act of balancing drugs, therapies and nutrition....

Every day at Stacy's hospital bed, Marcus told stories to the baby....

Three days ago, doctors delivered baby Zoe by Caesarean section. She weighed just 3 pounds, 3 ounces, but there is every indication she will be healthy....

Forty-eight hours later, Stacy was removed from life support and her organs were donated.

Find out more about this story at www.stacyfosterrojas.com.

I can think of at least one intellectual/moral quandary this story presents abortion and euthanasia proponents. If one must have brain waves to be human, for instance, as so many on this site say, then this woman - carrying a human "fetus," no less - must not have been human after her aneurism.

Are there others?

[Hat tip: SamanthaT]

Why not keep her alive and let her have more children?

Who paid for all this treatment?

Wow. Does it really matter who paid for all this treatment? And why the hell would you keep her alive to continue to have more children? That is strange, and while not ACTUALLY cruel, pretty twisted, I think. He kept her alive so she could birth their baby, she was more than halfway through the pregnancy at the time of her aneurysm. She obviously wanted to have the child, and so did he.

Seriously. Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually THINK.

Wow. Does it really matter who paid for all this treatment? And why the hell would you keep her alive to continue to have more children? That is strange, and while not ACTUALLY cruel, pretty twisted, I think. He kept her alive so she could birth their baby, she was more than halfway through the pregnancy at the time of her aneurysm. She obviously wanted to have the child, and so did he.

Seriously. Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually THINK.

Woah. Repost. Sorry!

The baby looks very small in the picture. How far was the pregnancy carried before the birth?

@Samantha: Since the mother was in a coma and was receiving IV nutrients, that could have stunted fetal growth. I could be wrong though, but I doubt the womb of a comatose woman is as beneficial to development compared to that of a healthy woman's.

It says on the ABC site that "she weighed just 3 pounds, 3 ounces, but there is every indication she will be healthy."

The article also says the pregnancy was continued as long as possible, for it was better for the baby. Nothing about whether "as long as possible" is the remaining three months of the pregnancy, although I'm assuming they tried to maintain the pregnancy for at least another two months.

Wouldn't she have wanted to have more children, too? You could get her husband to inseminate her.

How do you know whether she wanted to have more children? And you honestly don't see something twisted in keeping her body alive just to inseminate her and continually impregnate her? Literally, you're saying you want her body to be a baby-factory. While pro-choicers often exaggerate and joke that this is what pro-lifers want of women, this is ACTUALLY what you're saying. That's terrifying.

Keeping her body alive isn't as good as her actually being alive and functioning. It's clear, even from simply looking at the picture above of the tiny baby, that her body wasn't as well-equipped to carry a pregnancy as a healthy, functioning woman's body is. It's really strange that you're even thinking about this, I think.

To be honest, I have no idea what to think about this. I think I'm OK with them keeping her body alive to incubate the child because they know that she wanted it- but I also read a news article once about a brain-dead woman found to be pregnant after going brain-dead, and a vicious battle ensued about whether they should keep her on life support and attempt to have the baby, and then there was the fact that she was apparently too slow along to have been impregnated before she was in the coma, so she was raped while in a coma, went brain dead, then they found out that she was pregnant. It's a fascinating moral quandary to say the least.

What if she had left instructions, requesting in the event of brain death to have as many children as possible?

She didn't. So what's your issue? And it's still ethically and morally questionable, because ultimately, the husband is having sex with his dead wife to make more babies. And again. Her physical body is no longer equipped to produce children. For the second time (I'm copying and pasting what I said above, since, clearly, you can't read): Keeping her body alive isn't as good as her actually being alive and functioning. It's clear, even from simply looking at the picture above of the tiny baby, that her body wasn't as well-equipped to carry a pregnancy as a healthy, functioning woman's body is.

Since she was already six months pregnant when she had an aneurysm, the pregnancy was more than halfway along, and therefore her active and able body was capable of doing all it needed in those six months to enable the child to be born healthy. It is doubtful that a comatose body is capable of doing the same, especially if the body is comatose and inactive for the duration of the pregnancy.

I think you're sick, if you actually think it's a plausible situation that should have occurred.

I disagree. It's her duty as a Catholic to have as many children as possible. And it's the duty of every pro-lifer to keep her alive as long as possible.

Ilana,

You've just been smogged. You can't take anything he says seriously.

The man's personal hero is George Tiller...

Jill,

I know I like to point out as often as possible that Smaug is a clown, but even I realize that posting it
six times is overkill.

Sorry.

Ilana, why in the world did you take those posts seriously?
MaryKay has beat me to it, but that was obviously SOMG/B1bobforprez/doctordefense/Slothfulone posting, not a pro-life advocate.
Maybe you could actually attempt to answer Jill's question now.

Ilana, as Bethany and MK pointed out, SlothfulOne and SMOG are one and the same, a rabid pro-abort. Do not think pro-lifers would condone human baby factories.

Guys and gals beware. SomG DOES post under several screen names. Oh, don't forget. gamblingaddictions on line is another. He's making up more as he goes.

PS He uses Granny pix on the Operation Rescue site and links you to several porn sites.

Back to topic; What a beautiful little baby!

I agree, beautiful. She probably helped the father grieve the loss of the mother also. Just imagine when she grows up and realizes how important she was to her family.

I'm happy for the husband; at least he didn't have to loose his daughter as well as his wife. And since she obviously decided to have the baby, I'm okay with the husband's decision to keep her alive.

"Wouldn't she have wanted to have more children, too? You could get her husband to inseminate her."

What's with the lunacy in these parts?

The desire for more children while she was alive, needless to say, would have been connected to many implications of having children -- implications which assumed her own continued living. Women don't, in the abstract, think "gee, I'd like to have more children whether I'm alive or dead." If they want more children, it's generally (as with fathers) because they want to share their love with more children.

rasqual, see our above posts about the person that wrote that.

Ingrid, if the woman had been considering aborting the baby before she went into a coma, would you be supportive or insupportive of the father keeping her body alive for the baby's sake? Just curious.

Women don't, in the abstract, think "gee, I'd like to have more children whether I'm alive or dead." If they want more children, it's generally (as with fathers) because they want to share their love with more children.

Rasqual, I am reminded of a story I read last year in "People," I believe, about a soldier who had his sperm frozen to be used in the event that he was killed in battle. His wife now has a beautiful baby boy, but she will unfortunately have to raise him without his father. Needless to say, freezing sperm and keeping a uterus alive are far and wide apart, but it is an interesting situation.

Hey, cool...Rasquals comment is on quote of the day...that was such a great post!

Samantha, that was a wonderful gift for the soldier to give his wife.

Women don't, in the abstract, think "gee, I'd like to have more children whether I'm alive or dead." If they want more children, it's generally (as with fathers) because they want to share their love with more children.

Rasqual, I am reminded of a story I read last year in "People," I believe, about a soldier who had his sperm frozen to be used in the event that he was killed in battle. His wife now has a beautiful baby boy, but she will unfortunately have to raise him without his father. Needless to say, freezing sperm and keeping a uterus alive are far and wide apart, but it is an interesting situation.

Jill,

You always suggest these dilemmas and quandaries that prochoicers are supposed to have yet I never actually see one. I think you’re trying way too hard just saying that prochoicers would somehow be opposed to this sort of effort to save a baby, and of course they're not. The only real relevant issue is the sanctity of life one, and that they didn't keep the mother alive indefinitely, which no doubt upsets some of your people more so than anyone else.

It just blows me away how you all attempt hijack political capital from any and every emotionally charged story. It’s morally unconscionable. And the way you all go on about it, all a ga ga, reminds me of a pack of hyenas disemboweling and eating some savannah newborn while it’s still alive.

Abortion is murder.

"but I also read a news article once about a brain-dead woman found to be pregnant after going brain-dead, and a vicious battle ensued about whether they should keep her on life support and attempt to have the baby, and then there was the fact that she was apparently too slow along to have been impregnated before she was in the coma, so she was raped while in a coma, went brain dead, then they found out that she was pregnant. It's a fascinating moral quandary to say the least."

..ahhh, always trying to justify killing the unborn..

"Abortion is murder... brahhh"

Ohhh Polly want a cracker?

Abortion is murder.

Actually situations like this have happened before. A few years back in California, a pregnant young woman, also with a brain aneurysm was scheducled for surgery. She made her fiance promise that, no matter what happened to her, he would do everything necessary to save their baby. She was about 6 months pregnant. Very tragically, complications during surgery rendered the mother brain dead. She was kept alive on the ventilator to sustain the baby until she could be safely delivered. Her fiance had to fight her family, but he was determined to keep his promise, and did. A beautiful baby girl was safely delivered and the life support discontinued.
There was also another case of a pregnant woman comatose as the result of brain trauma from a car accident. Unlike the above mentioned woman, she was not brain dead. While there was little hope for her recovery, the pregnancy was allowed to continue. Again a beautiful baby was delivered. Then, something happened. The mother began emerging from her coma, began to speak, and was aware of the baby and her surroundings. Doctors were stumped and at a complete loss to understand this woman's awakening. She was eventually transferred to the rehabilitation unit. There have been other reported incidents as well of brain injured, not brain dead, pregnant women emerging from comas upon delivery of their babies. Again there is no explanation. Does the delivery trigger something in the brain? Is it hormonal shifts? Theories abound.
And please, where was anything said by the husband about keeping this woman alive to have more children?

Rae, in response to your question. So long as the baby is receiving nutrients and oxygenation, I don't see why the comatose woman's womb would be any less healthful than a healthy woman's. Also, this lady wouldn't be eating junk food, or smoking, drinking, or using drugs like some pregnant "healthy" woman might.

Mary, How true!

To summarize Mary:

Put pregnant women into a coma so they don't smoke and drink, and inseminate coma victims so they come out of the coma upon birth.

Yes Cameron, that's *exactly* what she was saying./sarcasm

I think I am going to drag out my list of sickening baby killer abortionists today.

Oh give me a break would you Cameron? I was answering Rae's question concerning the uterus of a comatose woman as opposed to that of a healthy woman. I was pointing out that a comatose woman would not be doing some of the things a healthy woman might do that could harm an unborn child, and given the proper nutrients and oxygenation, should be able to deliver a normal, healthy child.
Also, the accounts of the pregnant women emerging from a coma upon delivery are very joyful. Who cares why she emerged? If the delivery triggered the recovery, great! If something else did, great!
The situations I mentioned in my post were women who were already pregnant at the time of their accidents, so don't be ridiculous, Cameron. No where in my post did I condone putting anyone into a coma or inseminating a comatose woman.

Mary, The majority of us feel that Cameron is just here for fun and games. That's why you will see him write things like this over and over again.

Camelot, one doesn't have to twist like a pretzel playing Twister to be pro-life.

Presenting these situations "ripped from the headlines" forces pro-aborts to. I like that. And I hope one of these twists will become one too many for one/some of you, and you'll give up your ridiculous, illogical, irrational position.

Bethany's question in that regard was perfect: "If the woman had been considering aborting the baby before she went into a coma, would you be supportive or insupportive of the father keeping her body alive for the baby's sake?"

Heather4life,

On second thought I shouldn't have dignified Cameron's post with a response. We are all blessed with hindsight!

that was supposed to be funny Mary.

Mary, There is a small chance that I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that I'm right. I have been to some pro choice sites before, and some of the things that they say make Cameron look like a saint. However, he really seems more interested in going for shock value rather than debate. It's a real shame, because babies are dying every day.

"...going for shock value rather than debate. ...because babies are dying every day."

LMAO

Heather, I have no doubt. He's even admitted it himself anyway. Remember how he said he's just here to stir up trouble? One good thing about him though is he helps expose the pro-choice inaccuracies even better than we can sometimes.

"I hope one of these twists will become one too many for one/some of you, and you'll give up your ridiculous, illogical, irrational position."

Dito

"Bethany's question in that regard was perfect: "If the woman had been considering aborting the baby before she went into a coma, would you be supportive or insupportive of the father keeping her body alive for the baby's sake?""

If she had actually decided on abortion prior to coma, and was actively seeking one, the father is violating her bodily autonomy. Considering she is not self-aware however, it's not a particularly agregious violation of bodily autonomy and I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. If she had not actually decided but was "considering," the decision now reasonably defaults to that of her husbands.

How bout you guys answer this; Let's say they had both openly expressed an interest in having a kid, but she goes into a coma shortly before they are to concieve after having endured lots of IVF related hardships... would you be opposed to the father having an embryo implanted, and her kept alive till birth?

Cameron,

If it was supposed to be funny that's not how I interpreted it. Let's leave it at that. I'll look forward to more jousts with you!!

Bethany, abortion kills fetuses. Please, learn how to use the English language.

"If it was supposed to be funny that's not how I interpreted it. Let's leave it at that. I'll look forward to more jousts with you!!"

That's because of the double standard here. When a prochoicers says something funny it's disgusting and what not, if not promptly deleted. Oscar Wilde was right on the mark regarding the efficacy of wit, which is why you all really don't have a sense of humor when it's not coming from your camp.

Abortion kills babies.

If she had actually decided on abortion prior to coma, and was actively seeking one, the father is violating her bodily autonomy. Considering she is not self-aware however, it's not a particularly agregious violation of bodily autonomy and I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. If she had not actually decided but was "considering," the decision now reasonably defaults to that of her husbands.

So you can violate the woman's bodily autonomy at all, even if she has become what you consider to be a non-person? I thought non-persons don't have the right to bodily autonomy at all. Why does a non-person in a coma have more rights than a fetus who you consider to be a non-person but actually has a chance to develop into what you would consider into a person by growing further inside the womb of the non-person? :-P

Bethany, abortion kills fetuses. Please, learn how to use the English language.

Ilana, please invest in a dictionary of the English language.

Bethy, I have quite a few. And they all tell me that a baby is born. A fetus is not. Thanks.

Really? Do they agree with these?
Fetus:

The developing baby from the ninth week of pregnancy until the moment of the birth.
www.infertilitycentral.com/fertility/infertility-glossary,3.html

term used to describe a developing baby from the nineth week of development to birth.
www.medgen.ubc.ca/wrobinson/mosaic/glossary.htm

A term used to refer to a baby during the period of gestation between eight weeks and term.
www.conceptfert.com.au/glossf.htm

Unborn baby from 9 weeks after it is formed until it is born
www.umdnj.edu/hsweb/research_glossary/f.htm

an unborn baby
www.hearingcenteronline.com/diction_def.shtml

The term for the baby from the beginning of the 9 th week of pregnancy to the time of birth.
www.clearplan.com/GlossaryofConceptionTerms.cfm

Heather4life,

I know what you mean by pro-choice sites. One in particular assumed and attacked me as an Evangelical, which I'm not. Suppose I were to attack someone for being what I assumed to be Black or Jewish? Somehow, attacking people because of their Christian faith is acceptable to people who otherwise consider themselves bastions of tolerance. The language and personal attacks became infantile. My comments were all deleted. Jill may not agree with or like what you say, but you will have your say and it will be posted, at lease that's how it seems with all the varying opinions I see posted. Please, all I want is an intelligent argument. None was ever forthcoming. Most of them couldn't even spell! Before I get anyone on this thread upset, I will stress that I am well aware that not all pro-choice people are this way, but I could never see Jill tolerating vile language on her website. In fact, I think we have all chimed in and criticized attacks that were personal and petty and unrelated to the subject being discussed, and we should. No matter what, we seem to run a pretty civil discussion, whatever our point of view. I think different points of view are what make this site so interesting, not everyone marching in lockstep.

Ilana,

Fetus is Latin for offspring, or child.

Those are all incorrect. Whoops!

The stages of life are as follows:
Prenatal- conception until birth (the zygote stage, the embryonic stage, the fetal stage)
Infancy- birth until weaning
Childhood- weaning until puberty
Adolescence- puberty until the completion of growth
Adulthood- the completion of growth

I think all those sites are mistakenly using the word "baby" in the place of "human." Don't understand why. I'm pretty sure you'd never call an infant an adult, and I'm also pretty sure you'd never call an octogenarian an adolescent, so I don't understand why you all have an issue with mixing up the stages of life when it comes to prenatal and infancy. Whatever. It's just funny to me.

Bethany, I feel that no woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy. So if she'd been thinking about abortion, I couldn't agree with the husband's decision since it would've been against Ms Roja's wishes.

I'll try to remember to keep in mind that Ilana's opinion on a definition of a word is to be regarded more highly than the definitions in medical and english dictionaries.

Please Cameron,

I simply misunderstood, OK? Its a little difficult at times to decipher exactly what context people are saying something in when its all written. Its not a big deal.

Bethany, I feel that no woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy. So if she'd been thinking about abortion, I couldn't agree with the husband's decision since it would've been against Ms Roja's wishes.

Sorry, Ilana, according to you and other pro-choice advocates, emotional pleas aren't allowed in debate (even though you all disregard this rule when it suits your fancy). The cold, hard fact of the matter, according to pro-choice logic, is that the woman without brain function is a non-person, and therefore has no rights.

Yes, Mary. LATIN. We're speaking English, and "fetus" is English for a human being in the womb, after the embryonic stage of development.

And you could do us all the favor of actually reading who you're responding to. Poor Ingrid is getting ignored because you saw the first letter of her name was "I" and thought it was me.

"You" being Bethany.

I never said anything about emotional pleas. I just have a problem with the religious aspect.

Yes, Mary. LATIN. We're speaking English, and "fetus" is English for a human being in the womb, after the embryonic stage of development.

Are you not aware that the English word is derived from the latin word, Ilana?

"So you can violate the woman's bodily autonomy at all, even if she has become what you consider to be a non-person? I thought non-persons don't have the right to bodily autonomy at all."

Don't be such a retard. You're boardering on incoherent. Calm down... grab a Calvin & Hobbes book or something.

You're mixing non-person and bodily autonomy issues. Part of respect for the dead is a bodily autonomy... eg necrophilia is illegal. I don't know why you think that one must have all rights or no rights at all either. What's your problem today?

"Orchid" was derived from the Latin word meaning "testicle." I'm pretty sure that when we discuss orchids, we're not discussing testicles, but rather, a very pretty flower.

That wasn't me, sweetie. That was Ingrid.

Yes, you are correct, Ilana. Do you know why the orchid is derived from the word Testicle?

"The word “orchid” is derived from the Latin word orchis (name for the plant used by Pliny the Elder [23 - 79 AD] in his encyclopedia, Historia Naturalis) and ultimately from a similar Greek word meaning “testicle” for the shape of the pseudobulb found in many of the plants"

"Bethany, I feel that no woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy. So if she'd been thinking about abortion, I couldn't agree with the husband's decision since it would've been against Ms Roja's wishes."

If she hadn't actually decided however.... I think the case needs further consideration. For example, one of her factors for considering an abortion was timing and that she did indeed want to have kids eventually. In this case, the husband could argue that because she did indeed want to have kids eventually and this was pretty much her only opportunity, I'd say go ahead and keep her alive till the baby is born. Unless the mother has explicitly gone so far as to say she does not want to have the child, it really should be up to the husband to make the call after she's been incapacitated. I think most husbands would do the right thing for their lover.

"Part of respect for the dead is a bodily autonomy... eg necrophilia is illegal."

I think Cameron has brought up an interesting point. Our legal system affords more rights to a dead body then to an unborn child. You can dismember a baby in the womb, leave he/she on a delivery table to suffer and die if the baby is aborted alive, inject poison into a baby's heart, but Lord help you if you decide to dismember a corpse! Wouldn't want to desecrate a dead object or anything like that, but a baby, well, we don’t really care what you do to them.

I think most husbands would do the right thing for their lover.

I agree, and I think that most fathers would also do the right thing for their child. Again, you're using an emotional plea, a no-no in the pro-choice book of rules for pro-life debate. You want the woman's wishes to be respected after she has become what you consider to be a non-person. Either emotional please are acceptable or they're not.

And that still doesn't say that an orchid IS a testicle. Thanks for supporting me!

Doesn't have to, Ilana.

The word Orchid is derived from the word "testicle" because it describes an orchid, granted, it only describes it's appearance.

The word "fetus" is derived from the word "offspring" because it describes what an unborn child is.

"...but a baby, well, we don’t really care what you do to them."

Yes... you're right. Throughout history, and in every culture, the early fetus, at least, when misscarried is not afforded a funeral, a death certificate, an investigation for wrongful death, and can be discarded in the toilet for all we care. The bible even treats it as less than person.

SH, 11:10a, that is a great point.

Ooooh good point, Sh!

So, Cameron, you are saying that you don't care what are done to unborn babies, but you DO care what is done to dead bodies?

"The bible even treats it [fetus] as less than person."

The Bible does not treat the "fetus" as anything, because the word "fetus" is never used. The word "baby", however, is used multiple times and encompasses the life of the child from conception to birth.

Thanks Jill, Bethany! : )

And you still haven't proved how it means child. Child is not synonymous with offspring.

You're equivocating like a five year old SH

But just in case you actually beleive the meaning of what you're trying to say here, try a few of these bible versus.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm

Oops forgot to answer..

"So, Cameron, you are saying that you don't care what are done to unborn babies, but you DO care what is done to dead bodies?"

Could you try not to insult people's intelligence by making everything personal. What I care or don't care about is not what makes abortions illegal or legal... but I guess it's not suprising that ruit who's trying to legally enforce emotionally loaded tripe would think of everything at that level.

Sorry for the delay, my internet connection went down.

"You're equivocating like a five year old SH"
How am I beating around the bush Cameron? I asked you a direct question in my last post. That is not equivocating. I get a kick out of you giving me a link to a website on religious tolerance – where exactly are the Bible verses that directly say "abortion" and "fetus"?

Here are some Bible verses that use the word "baby" for your information:

"Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!" Isaiah 49:15

"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." Luke 1:41

"While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born." Luke 2:6

"A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world." John 16:21

"Could you try not to insult people's intelligence by making everything personal? What I care or don't care about is not what makes abortions illegal or legal... but I guess it's not suprising that ruit who's trying to legally enforce emotionally loaded tripe would think of everything at that level."

Hmmm, still didn't answer my question, Cameron. And how is my question that insulting your intelligence? I was just asking you if you personally care what is done to dead bodies more than what is done to unborn babies. And the fact that we have more laws on the books that protect dead bodies then unborn babies does concern me, so that is why I was originally making the point.

While fetus is Latin, Latin terms are often used to denote various parts of the body and bodily processes, including reproduction so as to keep them consistent and avoid confusion. Why do you suppose the Latin term for child would be used to denote an unborn baby?

"Could you try not to insult people's intelligence by making everything personal?"

Attention Everyone – You are no longer allowed to ask personal questions of fellow bloggers because it insult's Cameron's intelligence.

SH, I'll make a note of that. I don't know what I'd do if I offended Cameron.

LOL Heather!

Oh good grief, Ilana, do you not have a dictionary of your own to use:

Offspring:

a son or daughter of human parents
encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861596701/child.html

1. descendant: a person's child or an animal's young, or sometimes a descendant of a plant
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861684591

• noun (pl. same) a person’s child or children, or the young of an animal.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/offspring?view=uk

offspring (plural offspring)

1. son(s) or daughter(s)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Offspring

offspring
Definition 1. the child, young, or descendant of a particular parent or ancestor.
Synonyms young (2) , child (1,2,3) , brood (2) , scion (1) , progeny (1) , descendant (1) , issue (5)
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=offspring&matchtype=exact

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. offspring
1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/O0042500.html

off·spring /ˈɔfˌsprɪŋ, ˈɒf-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awf-spring, of-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -spring, -springs.
1. children or young of a particular parent or progenitor.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=offspring&r=66

offspring n. offspring (offsprings) 1. Something that comes into existence as a result; "industrialism prepared the way for acceptance of the French Revolution's various socialistic offspring"; 2. The immediate descendants of a person; "she was the mother of many offspring";

• female offspring n. A child who is female.

• male offspring n. A child who is male;
http://ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?service=ee&text=offspring

offspring Look up offspring at Dictionary.com
O.E. ofspring "children or young collectively, descendants," lit. "those who spring off (someone,)" from off + springan "to spring" (see spring (v.)). The fig. sense is first recorded 1609.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=offspring

offspring
[Show phonetics]
noun [C]
the young of an animal, or a person's children
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=offspring*1+0&dict=A

Need I find more?

Saying that the word fetus is not used in the bible to counter a claim that the bible does indeed discuss the fetus, though without employing contemporary clinical terms, is equivocating.

"I was just asking you if you personally care what is done to dead bodies more than what is done to unborn babies."

Nice back-peddle! here's what you said since you can't seem to remember... note the strong use of second person.

"So, Cameron, you are saying that you don't care what are done to unborn babies, but you DO care what is done to dead bodies?"

Again, it insults my intelligence because the preceding post you're responding to, and have conveniently misrepresented, had nothing to do with what I may or may not care about. This is just another great example of how you all turn everything into a personal attack, or any other illegitimate rhetoric, because you are ugly people incapable of civil discourse.

If you want to ask me a question, moron, ask it directly and don't presumptuously infer the answer in advance. If you can rub your two working brain cells together in order to put together a reasonable and polite questions, I’d be happy to answer it… honestly.

For example… and please answer too…
Do really care what I think or are you just avoiding the sad reality that society in general doesn’t seem to think much of the fetus.?

I did actually want to know what you thought, but now could care less what you think or what you do. Instead of telling me I misunderstood your post, you proceed to insult me instead of answering my question or explaining what you meant. And in care you don't remember, here you go:
"You're equivocating like a five year old SH" – hardly reasonable and polite
"but I guess it's not suprising that ruit who's trying to legally enforce emotionally loaded tripe would think of everything at that level." – broad general patronizing statement that is hardly reasonable and polite.
"you are ugly people incapable of civil discourse." - how is this an example of how you would like to be treated by me?
"If you can rub your two working brain cells together in order to put together a reasonable and polite questions" – real mature.

So, moron, when you can explain yourself in a polite and reasonable way, then I might consider talking with you again. Until then, don't waste my time with your selfish ignorant dripple.

* dribble, but you get the point.

Amen SH. Most of us think Cameron is just an internet troll anyway.

Thanks Heather. I should have listened to HisMan! : )

SH, don't worry. I fell for it too. Cameron just likes to put people into a trick bag and then proceeds to waste their time by prattling on about a lot of nothing.

"I did actually want to know what you thought, but now could care less what you think or what you do."

BS! In no uncertain terms, your priority was to put me on the defense.

“..when you can explain yourself in a polite and reasonable way, then I might consider talking with you again.”

You started out with an interesting observation “Our legal system affords more rights to a dead body then to an unborn child” and I acknowledged it and ignored the foolish tripe in the sentences following it. Unfortunately, you couldn’t transcend the tripe and you instead followed-through with accusatory loaded questions (changing society to me) and red-herrings (equivocating about what’s in the bible). I think you intended to be an idiot from the get go but accidentally/coincidentally said something thought provoking, and I ended up getting frustrated and disappointed. From then on, I call it like it is. Act like a moron, I call you a moron. Even now, you are still wholly incapable of even admitting that your question was offensive and misrepresented that we were talking about society, as opposed to me. Isn’t humility still a Christian virtue?? It is abundantly apparent here, each day, with retards like you, that Christian virtues and moral are a just a lip service thing.

For example.... Most adults would say something like... I’m sorry that my question sounded presumptuous and accusatory, and I understand you were not talking about yourself when you said “society”... however I am genuinely curious about your feelings regarding this.

Additionally...nobody here is any position to criticize me for employing your shortcomings for the purposes of making sweeping characterizations about prolifers in general.

Attention Everyone – You are no longer allowed to ask personal questions of fellow bloggers because it insult's Cameron's intelligence.

Another thing to make note of. Cameron's personal intelligence is very easily insulted.

Ingrid:

Bethany, I feel that no woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy. So if she'd been thinking about abortion, I couldn't agree with the husband's decision since it would've been against Ms Roja's wishes.

If Ms. Roja is no longer a person, why does it matter what her wishes were? At the time she became brain dead, she ceased to be a person, according to pro-choice logic. Remember, we're speaking in completely non-emotional pro-choice terms. If she is a non-person, regardless of whether she used to be a person, she does not have the rights of a person anymore, and doesn't deserve the right to have her wishes respected, because a non-person doesn't have the capacity to have a wish one way or the other.

Cameron:
"nobody here is any position to criticize me for employing your shortcomings for the purposes of making sweeping characterizations about prolifers in general."

I see all those words strung together, but for the life of me I can't make out any sense in which they do anything.

lol

rasqual, He rambles on so much that it's friggin funny!

It depends on which Cameron we're talking about.

He's expressed scorn for ostensible paranoia in these parts about how many different names some posters might be using. My curiosity is in a different direction -- what are the schedules of Cameron I and Cameron II, respectively? How many different people have used the Cameron name?